THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW: A GREAT EDUCATIONAL TOOL OR A SENSATIONALISTIC AND IRRESPONSIBLE FILM?

Practically all my environmentalist friends are talking about The Day After Tomorrow, a fictional film set in the near future about a worst-case scenario of climate change. Many colleagues tell me it's great that this film comes out because it will trigger a long-overdue debate on global warming, and maybe this public debate will compel the Bush administration to face the scientific facts and sign the Kyoto Protocol. Well, I'm not so sure.

When I saw the Statue of Liberty submerged in the movie trailer I got the feeling that the movie is probably simple-minded, sensationalist and even downright irresponsible. Not even the direst, most wild-eyed, gloom and doom global warming prediction has suggested that such a thing would even come close to happening.

The scientific consensus on the effects of global warming is that there won't be anything as Hollywood-ish as what the film depicts, we are much more likely to see a slow, long term deterioration of the planet's capacity to sustain human life... a decades-long process. And film directors and producers know full well that decades-long processes do not make good material for a blockbuster movie.

(As for the Kyoto Protocol, it has almost nothing to do with taking action against global warming and a lot to do with privatizing the atmosphere and selling "pollution permits".)

On a brighter note, the Union of Concerned Scientists published an educational dossier on The Day After Tomorrow. It makes for very good reading.

Two high-profile events are putting the issue of "abrupt climate change" squarely in the public eye. The first is a February 2004 Fortune Magazine article that broke the news of a report prepared for the Pentagon on abrupt climate change and its implications for U.S. national security. The Pentagon report describes a scenario in which human-caused global warming leads to a near-term collapse of the ocean's thermohaline circulation, which brings warm surface waters from the tropics to the North Atlantic, warming parts of Western Europe. The authors propose dramatic impacts, including rapid cooling in Europe, greatly diminished rainfall in many important agricultural and urban centers and consequent disruptions in food supply and water supply with enormous geopolitical and security implications.

The second is the May 2004 release of The Day After Tomorrow a 20th Century Fox blockbuster disaster movie with a similar premise. With a dashing paleoclimatologist as the action hero, The Day After Tomorrow depicts a world careening toward an ice age over a few weeks time. Here too, the culprit is the warming-induced shutdown of the thermohaline circulation.

The authors of the Pentagon report and the producers of The Day After Tomorrow caution readers and viewers against treating these extreme scenarios as serious possibilities. The Pentagon report intentionally considers the worst possible scenario, one that stretches the boundary of scientific plausibility. The Day After Tomorrow leaps beyond that boundary to unleash a collection of climate catastrophes intended to thrill audiences and showcase the latest special effects. Yet underlying even these extreme scenarios are the sober facts of human-caused global warming and the real opportunities to minimize climate change by reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases.

UCS views the publicity generated by these events as an opportunity to help the public and decision-makers better understand what we know about the causes, consequences and solutions to climate change. Toward that end, we provide the following answers to "frequently asked questions".

Q: Can what happens in The Day After Tomorrow happen in real life?

A: No. The dramatic, virtually instantaneous and widespread cooling envisioned in the film is fiction. But like all good science fiction, the film is premised on several important scientific facts. We know with great certainty that the Earth is already warming, largely because as we burn fossil fuels and clear forests we are releasing carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. This warming is expected to continue in the coming decades, accompanied by changes in rainfall patterns and rising sea levels. The possibility of an abrupt shift in the climate system is only one feature of a changing climate that is expected to become more erratic, with extreme weather events like droughts, torrential rainfall, and extreme heat becoming more common. We can slow down global warming and reduce the likelihood of future abrupt climate changes by reducing our emissions of heat-trapping gases.

viernes, mayo 28, 2004

The full text of Claire Hope Cummings' excellent piece on biopharmaceutical crops, published in a recent issue of Worldwatch Magazine, is now available in the Crop Choice web site:

Silent Winter? Biopharmed crops are turning wildlife -- and us -- into lab animals.The intrusion of transgenic rice into the Sacramento Valley presents significant risks to wildlife and to the delicate ecosystems on which it depends. And it threatens the $500 million California rice industry, which has worked hard to develop a high quality product (including a thriving organic rice business) and an environmentally friendly image through its efforts to protect waterfowl and shorebird habitat. Now the possibility that rice with human genes and other novel proteins could also contaminate the human food supply is stirring up a storm of controversy.

The Ventria Bioscience company is testing rice that has been genetically engineered with human genes to make two proteins found in human breast milk, lysozyme and lactoferrin. Nursing mothers supply these proteins to their babies in their milk, offering them enhanced resistance to bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other microbes. Lactoferrin provides an iron supplement as well. While Ventria is experimenting with several human gene-enhanced rice strains, it plans to use its human-breast-milk-laced rice as an “alternative to the use of antibiotics in poultry diets” and as a supplement in infant formula. Why would anyone take proteins that are already available in their natural form and genetically engineer them to create new recombinant forms of these same proteins? Because this is the only way a company can patent and own these valuable substances. This new and largely untested scheme raises unprecedented agricultural, economic, legal, environmental, and ethical questions. So, the general public might assume that the regulatory agencies involved in approving such experimental uses of food crops are addressing these issues adequately. Unfortunately, that is not happening.

The NGO Biowatch is currently taking the South African Government to court, over access to information on GM crops in South Africa.

For years, the NGO has been trying to get access to the safety data and information on which GMOs are being imported, tested, grown and released, which it says the public has the right to know. But the registrar of genetic resources has consistently stalled, claiming that the data is confidential business information.

Now Biowatch has taken their demand to the Pretoria High Court, where the Registrar of Genetic Resources, the Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms and the minister of agriculture have been joined by biotech companies Monsanto and Delta Pine Land, and seed company Stoneville Pedigreed, who are seeking to prevent the information about their products being made public.

The case started on Monday, and has been accompanied by protests from the public, demanding their right to know about GMOs in their food.

Under questioning, the respondents admitted that Biowatch was entitled to most of the information it sought, but tried to claim that the amount of information being requested was too much for understaffed Registrar of Genetic Resources to deal with. To which the judge commented "The effect of (this argument) is that because a particular state organ is understaffed people are going to be denied their Constitutional Rights to access information."

The judge said that his decision would probably not be made until the end of next week.

The FAO recently released its annual publication, The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-2004. This year, the theme was on "Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the needs of the poor?" The report touches on the full range of agricultural biotechnology tools and applications, but focuses largely on transgenic or GM crops and their impact on poor people in poor countries.

The FAO is disingenuous when it calls on countries to develop stronger IPR regimes to promote GM crop research, even as the independent Commission on Intellectual Property Rights has expressed reservations over patent protection for plants and animals. Many developing countries that are World Trade Organisation (WTO) members, particularly the Africa Group, have also expressed similar concerns, joining countless non-governmental and civil society organisations, and some 700 scientists (including ISP members), to call for no patents on living organisms.

Is the FAO ignoring these views, much as it seems to be selective in the evidence it draws on to justify the report’s conclusions? For example, in the section on public attitudes, the report relies heavily on a survey that asks imbalanced questions. This section concludes that people in developing countries are generally likely to support agricultural biotechnology, which is not surprising, given that the risks are not mentioned in the questions asked, only the potential benefits.

Prof. Joe Cummins discovers that dangerous GM pharmaceutical crops have been produced and marketed in the United States for at least two years, unbeknownst to the public, via a gaping loophole in the regulatory process.

There has been a great deal of public opposition recently to the testing of rice genetically modified to produce the human proteins lysozyme and lactoferrin in the United States. So far, those tests have been stalled (see SiS 22).

But, Sigma-Aldrich, a US chemical company, has been marketing the biopharmaceutical products trypsin, avidin and beta-glucuronidase (GUS) processed from transgenic maize, for at least two years. Meanwhile, Prodigene Corporation and Sigma-Aldrich are marketing aprotinin (AproliZean) from maize and from a transgenic tobacco.

Trypsin is a digestive enzyme used extensively in research, to treat disease and in food processing. The product TrypZean is marketed as an animal free product, and is produced jointly by Sigma-Aldrich and Prodigene (the company fined for contaminating food crops with biopharmaceuticals in the United States last year).

miércoles, mayo 26, 2004

Opposition to the controversial practice of genetically engineering crops to produce pharmaceutical and industrial compounds, also called "biopharming", has been building steadily since 2002, according to a risk profile released today by Friends of the Earth (FoE) and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG).

In the latest setback, San Diego-based Epicyte Pharmaceutical, a leading developer of pharmaceutical corn, announced on May 6th it would close its doors. Another blow came in early April, when the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) denied Sacramento-based Ventria Bioscience a permit to grow 120 acres of pharmaceutical rice in Southern California, a decision applauded by Friends of the Earth and U.S. PIRG.

martes, mayo 25, 2004

What if, by taking a drug, you could possess an IQ of 250? Or by tinkering with your genes, have the athletic prowess of a decathlete? Or by injecting yourself with stem cells, live to be 160? Would you do it? Would these enhancements make you less human? If everyone did this, would the world become a paradise full of self-actualized superpeople? Or a dystopian Stepford society devoid of essential human values such as compassion for the less blessed? What seems like fodder for a science fiction potboiler has become a matter of deadly serious debate among scientists and ethicists.

Percy Schmeiser's long legal battle against Monsanto has reached an end. On 21 May 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, in a tight 5-4 decision, that the farmer was guilty of violating Monsanto's patent on a gene for resistance to glyphosate ("Roundup", a broad-spectrum herbicide). The Court determined that patent rights on a gene extend to the living organism in which it is found and, consequently, that saving and planting seed containing a patented gene without authorisation from the patent holder is illegal.

This ruling follows a ground breaking decision by the same court, in the Harvard oncomouse case, to reject patents on higher life forms. The judges were equally aware that no Canadian government has put forward a policy or law that prevents farmers from saving seed on their own farm, although the Plant Breeders' Rights Act makes swapping or selling seed harvested from protected varieties without authorisation illegal. Canadian farmers have a long and strong tradition of seed saving, especially in the western prairies where Schmeiser is from. Canola, the crop Schmeiser grew, is itself a product of farmer seed saving, farmer selection and publically funded research. It's an example of what plant breeding can accomplish without patents. It's also an example of why co-existence between GM (genetically modified) and non-GM crops is impossible. Today, all of the canola acreage in Western Canada is contaminated with Monsanto's patented "Roundup-Ready" (RR) gene.

The Supreme Court handed down their decision yesterday and I have mixed emotions to it. I have received many phone calls and emails from concerned supporters and friends and I appreciate this very much. It was a personal victory and I want to thank my lawyer Terry Zakreski for his dedication and perseverance on my behalf. On the broader issues of my case, I regret that things did not work out for my supporters.

I do not have to pay Monsanto one cent for profits, damages, penalties, court costs or their technology use fee of $15/acre. I feel good about this ruling, as I have said all along that I didn't take advantage or profit from Monsanto's technology in my fields. I am pleased that the Supreme Court felt that way as well. It has been my position that I didn't want their technology in my fields, that I didn't use their technology by spraying, didn't sell their technology as seed to another farmer and didn't earn any profit from it. I felt it hard to accept that I should have to pay them for it.

THE GENE REVOLUTION: NO POTENTIAL FOR THE POOR - YET A THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT

The environment and biodiversity, not GMOs, need more FAO attention

Just like the FAO, IFOAM sees the need for increased food production to provide food for the world's growing population. IFOAM shares the view of FAO that 'The challenge is to develop technologies that combine several objectives - increase yields and reduce costs, protect the environment, address consumer concerns for food safety and quality, enhance rural livelihoods and food security'. IFOAM, however, cannot understand why FAO thinks these challenges can be addressed by a risky technology out of reach of the poor. In its own press release, the FAO states that only six countries, four crops and two traits are so far involved in genetic engineering. IFOAM wonders why the poor have to wait for future promises, when there is currently a 'user-friendly' low-cost approach available that is environmentally and socially sound and has substantial economic benefits: Organic Agriculture. IFOAM's new Executive Director Dr. Zadok Lempert points out "through natural technologies and methodologies already in place and human ingenuity, organic agriculture not only opposes GMO technology, but also provides many practical and functional ecological solutions to problems that biotechnology attempts to or promises to solve."

sábado, mayo 22, 2004

A showdown is taking shape over the nation's organic food standards, triggered by a spate of recent rule changes that some producers and activists say are setting a pattern that could eventually render the organic label meaningless.

The changes in the National Organic Program standards, made in April, expand the use of antibiotics and hormones in organic dairy cows, allow more pesticides in the organic arsenal and for the first time let organic livestock eat potentially contaminated fishmeal.

Adding to the Canada Supreme Court ruling on the Schmeiser case, more bad news on the biotech front this week. Europe is agreeing to import genetically engineered corn developed by the Syngenta corporation, thus breaching the European de facto moratorium on biotech foods and crops.

Civil society and farmers’ organizations worldwide reacted with outrage to today’s 5-4 decision by the Canadian Supreme Court, affirming Monsanto’s right to prosecute farmers who are found to have GM crops growing on their land — whether they wanted them or not. Gene Giant Monsanto accused Saskatchewan farmers Percy and Louise Schmeiser of violating the company’s patent on genetically modified canola (oilseed rape). Percy and Louise did not want Monsanto’s GM canola seeds that invaded their property, and they did not try to benefit from the herbicide-tolerant trait in the GM seed (that is, they didn’t spray Roundup weedkiller), but still Monsanto prosecuted them for patent infringement and demanded a portion of their income. The Schmeisers waged a courageous, 7-year battle against Monsanto that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

lunes, mayo 17, 2004

Will GM crops really help developing countries? Lim Li Ching, of the London-based Institute of Science in Society, looks at some telling examples in Kenya, Indonesia and India.

"Monsanto's showcase project in Africa fails", runs the headline in the magazine, New Scientist, pronouncing the project to develop genetically modified (GM) sweet potatoes a flop. The GM sweet potatoes, modified to be resistant to the feathery mottle virus, had undergone three years of field trials. However, the Kenya Agriculture Research Institute (KARI) had to report that the GM sweet potatoes were as vulnerable to the virus as ordinary varieties, and sometimes their yield was lower.

In December 2003, the Indonesian Minister of Agriculture announced that Monsanto had pulled out of South Sulawesi. In fact, Bt cottonseeds were no longer supplied to farmers as of February that year. Monsanto said that its cotton business there was no longer economically viable. After two years of planting, Indonesia, the first Southeast Asian country to commercially approve Bt cotton, was pulling the plug on that GM crop, and switching to a locally-developed non-GM cotton variety.

The Indonesian experience is mirrored by that of many farmers in India, where three varieties of Bt cotton were commercially planted for the first time in 2002 in the central and southern parts of the country. Mahyco-Monsanto, a joint venture between an Indian seed company and Monsanto, promoted Bt cotton as environmentally safe and economically beneficial, claiming it would reduce pesticide use and cultivation costs, while resulting in increased yields.

But reports from state governments, academic researchers, NGOs and farmers' organisations indicate that, in many areas, Bt cotton performed poorly, and at times failed completely in the 2002/2003 growing season. So much so that a panel set up by the Gujarat government under the Joint Director of Agriculture (Oilseeds) said that Bt cotton "is unfit for cultivation and should be banned in the State".

viernes, mayo 14, 2004

a new study by Harvard Business School and University of North Carolina is going against the popular beliefs surrounding filesharing. After tracking 1.75 million downloads over a 17-week period in 2002 and then comparing those observations to the sales of 680 popular albums, the study found that filesharing has no negative effect on CD sales.

In fact, for the most popular 25 percent of CDs, the study found that downloading boosts sales. For every 150 songs downloaded, sales of that album jumped one copy.

In the second half of the 20th century, the world became, quite literally, a darker place.

Defying expectation and easy explanation, hundreds of instruments around the world recorded a drop in sunshine reaching the surface of Earth, as much as 10 percent from the late 1950's to the early 90's, or 2 percent to 3 percent a decade. In some regions like Asia, the United States and Europe, the drop was even steeper. In Hong Kong, sunlight decreased 37 percent.

The Farming Solutions web site is launching this year Rice Solutions, a series of articles that will focus on sustainable ways of growing rice and the upcoming threat of genetically engineered rice. Here is a statement from the web page:

The year 2004 has been declared the International Year of Rice (IYR) by the United Nations, and responsibility was assigned to the FAO. At the 17th session of the FAO Committee on Agriculture (Rome, 31 March-4 April 2003), the importance of IYR was stated as follows:

“Observance of the IYR provides an opportunity to celebrate and promote the ecological, social and cultural diversity of rice-based production systems as a prism through which key global concerns can be addressed: poverty and hunger alleviation, under-nourishment, food safety, environmental protection, sustainable use of scarce resources, equity and evolving scientific applications for food production. The IYR is expected to promote efficient and sustainable rice development through combined and mutually beneficial action by the entire community of interests addressing the challenges and opportunities facing production, consumption, marketing and trade of this highly strategic food.”

It is clear that IYR will initiate far-reaching debates on food security and food sovereignty, how rice production and productivity will be increased, and the risks and promises of new agricultural technologies. Such issues – with rice as its focal point – take us to the very heart of the debate over globalization, corporate control and food sovereignty. For mass-based and grassroots organizations in Asia, there is an urgent need to ensure that small farmers, agricultural workers and their communities intervene actively in this debate, challenging the narrow economic logic of trade and productivity with more fundamental social, cultural and ecological perspectives.

As such, IYR presents a critical opportunity to expose the threat of corporate control over rice, including the threat of genetically engineered (GE) rice. T

he prospect of the release of GE rice into the environment – in field trials as well as commercialization – poses one of the newest threats to rice biodiversity, culture and farmers’ livelihoods. The ecological damage would be uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in long-term cultural and socio-economic impacts, including food security. This generates new obstacles to achieving ecologically sustainable agriculture, and in particular would undermine traditional farming practices that have the potential to lead to sustainable agriculture and that hold cultural meaning and values.

While most GE rice varieties remain ‘myth GMOs’ that are more than a decade away from becoming a reality, the fact is that open-air field trials of GE rice already in several locations around the world – including Asia. It is widely expected that IYR will be used by agro-chemical/GE corporations such as Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto to dramatically increase government support for GE rice in Asia – presenting it as a ‘solution’ for rice farmers and their communities. This comes at a time when there is already extensive corporate influence in public rice research, agricultural R&D and food/agriculture policies.

In response to corporate pressure on governments to support/approve GE rice, it is necessary to increase public understanding of the very real ecological, social and cultural threats posed by GE rice. This also entails the provision of alternative sources of economic, environmental and scientific information to local government officials, scientists and other decision-makers.

It is this context that we will present a series of articles on ecologically sustainable rice farming that draws from farmers’ experiences and incorporates the cultural, social and economic rights of rural communities.

miércoles, mayo 12, 2004

ENVIRONMENTALISTS SAY "NO" TO GENETICALLY ENGINEERED TREES

Demand to the United Nations Forum on Forests:
Ban Genetically Engineered TreesGeneva, Switzerland--The Global Justice Ecology Project and the Stop GE Trees Campaign, both based in the U.S., are working with organizations including The Corner House of the UK, The Union of Ecoforestry from Finland, and World Rainforest Movement of Uruguay, to pressure the United Nations to oppose the use of genetically engineered trees in carbon offset forestry plantations developed under the Kyoto Protocol, and to ban their commercial development. On 11 May petitions signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. David Suzuki, more than 160 organizations including The Sierra Club, and Friends of the Earth International as well as over 1,500 individuals will be presented to the U.N. in Geneva backing these demands.

Anne Petermann, co-Director of Global Justice Ecology Project and Chair of the Stop GE Trees Campaign along with Hannu Hyvönen, Campaign Coordinator the Union of Ecoforestry of Finland will present on genetically engineered trees at a side event at the U.N. Forum on Forests in Geneva on 11 May. They will speak on the dangers of genetically engineered trees and present the petitions as well as statements from various organizations and scientists about the threats posed by genetically engineered trees.

“Carbon offset plantations that include genetically engineered trees will kill insects and wildlife, deplete soils and groundwater, and contaminate native forests with engineered pollen leading to forest health crises that worsen global warming, rather than alleviate it,” stated Anne Petermann of Global Justice Ecology Project and the Stop GE Trees Campaign. “It is imperative the U.N. insure genetically engineered trees are not used in carbon offset plantations and that they are banned from commercial development. Genetically engineered trees will only exacerbate the serious decline of our remaining native forests and forest dwelling peoples,” she continued.

With pressure from the U.S., the U.N.sponsored Ninth Conference of the Parties held in Milan, Italy last December, agreed to allow the use of genetically engineered trees in plantations developed for carbon sequestration as part of the Clean Development Mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol, despite the fact that the U.S. has rejected the Protocol. This agreement, reached over the objections of the European Union, opens the door for World Bank funding for development of genetically engineered trees in carbon offset plantations in the Global South through the Bank's Prototype Carbon Fund.

When their favorite clerks went on strike this year, many Southern California shoppers showed worker solidarity by boycotting Safeway and patronizing alternative grocery stores.

But if shoppers are serious about supporting workers, union advocates say, they might do better back in the corporate world of Safeway. Many organic food stores, born in the 1960s with the promise to bring ``conscious capitalism'' to the marketplace, lag behind the big chains when it comes to labor relations. Some clerks in organic stores charge that baby lettuce is treated better than they are.

Workers have brought complaints to the National Labor Relations Board against Berkeley Bowl, a now-closed Real Foods in San Francisco and Whole Foods in Madison, Wis., for allegedly firing, threatening or bribing employees who sought to unionize.

Speaking of corporate organics, the Organic Consumers Association warns that the Bush administration intends to facilitate the corpo takeover of organic food:

ACTION ALERT: Bush Administration moving to allow corporate takeover of organics!Over the past few weeks America's organic standards have once again come under heavy attack. First the USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) announced on April 14 that they would no longer monitor or police "organic" labels on non-agricultural products, literally opening the door for unscrupulous companies to put bogus organic labels on products such as fish, body care products, pet foods, fertilizer, and clothing.

In the case of seafood and body care products, the marketplace is already starting to become flooded with products bearing the organic label, even though the production methods (industrial fish farms) or content ("organic" shampoos with organic claims based upon added water) in many of these products violate traditional organic principles. Besides giving the green light to bogus organic labels the new USDA "scope policy" penalizes genuine organic companies that have begun sourcing, certifying, and labeling their products as organic.

Corporate agribusiness and the biotech lobby have apparently decided that strict organic farming practices and the booming organic market constitute a threat to their bottom line, and have called on their friends in the Bush administration USDA to degrade organic standards and prepare for a restructuring of organic production so as to facilitate the use of industrial agriculture practices such as pesticides, antibiotics, non-organic feed, growth hormones and even genetically engineered animal drugs.

Opponents of agricultural biotech scored BIG today with the Monsanto corporation's announcement that it gave up on genetically engineered wheat. Here is an excerpt from a press release by the Center for Food Safety issued today:

WASHINGTON — Monsanto announced today that it is pulling the plug on genetically engineered wheat after seven years of development and failed efforts to win over farmers and the international wheat market. The company made the announcement even as its application for commercialization remains pending, signifying that stiff opposition to the biotech food crop from U.S. farmers and international markets could not be overcome.

“Monsanto may call this a corporate realignment, but it’s really a full retreat,” said Joseph Mendelson, CFS legal director. “For Monsanto to pull the plug on biotech wheat at this stage, could hardly be more significant. The company has been forced to face reality — the market didn’t want this wheat and Monsanto itself is in a struggle for its very survival.”

“Introduction of genetically modified wheat would have been a commercial disaster,” said Gail Wiley, a North Dakota farmer speaking for the Dakota Resource Council and the Western Organization of Resource Councils. “Monsanto’s announcement today is a victory for farmers in the United States and Canada and our consumers overseas. After five years of effort, we finally convinced Monsanto to face reality: our markets do not want Roundup Ready wheat.”

“This is a huge victory for farmers, consumers and food safety
advocates,” added Mendelson, “and signifies a turning point in the
battle against genetically engineered foods.”

SOME MEDIA CELEBRITIES, ALONG WITH SOME SECTORS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT, BELIEVE THAT INDIVIDUALS AND INSTITUTIONS CAN COMPENSATE THEIR POLLUTING ACTIVITIES BY "OFFSETTING" THEM, FOR EXAMPLE BY PLANTING TREES OR BY PURCHASING FOREST LANDS. ALREADY A GROWING NUMBER OF FOR-PROFIT COMPANIES AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ARE ENTERING THE BOOMING FIELD OF SO-CALLED "CARBON OFFSETS", LIKE FUTURE FORESTS AND THE PROTOTYPE CARBON FUND.

BUT SOME ORGANIZATIONS ARE UNIMPRESSED AND UNENTHUSIASTIC, AND CLAIM THAT CARBON OFFSETS DO NOT ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING. THE FOLLOWING PRESS RELEASE PRETTY MUCH SUMS UP THEIR CASE:

The environmentalists charge that the claims of Future Forests and Climate Care to be able to render air travel, Coldplay CDs, the Glastonbury Festival and hundreds of other products and activities “carbon neutral” or “climate neutral” cannot be verified and distract public attention from attempts to address the causes of climate change. They are sending letters to dozens of the firms’ clients asking them to reconsider their association with the companies.

sábado, mayo 08, 2004

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins review some of the scientific evidence behind a series of recent scandals involving the safety of genetically modified (GM) food and feed. They expose fatal flaws in the regulatory process and highlight how Europe is in danger of approving GM varieties that are genetically unstable and hence illegal as well as unsafe. They demand a full enquiry into the abuse of science that has allowed GM crops not fit for human or animal consumption to enter our food chain.

"This merger proposes an unacceptable level of concentration at the national level, clearly in violation of the merger guidelines," states the petition filed Monday with the Federal Communications Commission, which will determine the merger outcome. "But the anti-competitive effects this merger will have on local markets is of even greater concern."

miércoles, mayo 05, 2004

Read this interview with one of my literary heroes: Michael Pollan. I had never before heard of Pollan until March of last year when I had the pleasure of having lunch with him during an Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) retreat in Connecticut.

"Orville Schell, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Journalism, persuaded Pollan, former editor of Harper's magazine and contributing editor to the New York Times Magazine, to move his family from their Connecticut farm to Berkeley to accept a newly endowed chair to teach science and technology journalism.
Schell raves about Pollan's 'food chain' journalism, crediting him with creating 'a whole world of reporting that didn't exist before: covering the world of agriculture from womb to tomb.'

FOOD SITUATION IN SUDAN AND ANGOLA: CALL FOR WFP TO RESPECT RESTRICTIONS ON GM FOOD AID AND PROVIDE REAL ALTERNATIVES
We, the undersigned NGOs from Africa, hereby register our disquiet at the failure by the WFP to guarantee Angola and Sudan the right to choose whether or not to accept genetically modified (GM) food aid, as the WFP is obliged to do. This failure is borne out in several news reports during March-April 2004, containing acerbic criticisms by the WFP and USAID at the decisions of the Angolan and Sudanese governments to impose restrictions on GM food aid. Moreover, the WFP and other donors have misled these governments by presenting to them a scenario of NO CHOICE: that they either accept GM food aid or face serious consequences.

Letter from David Brock, Founder of Media Matters for America
Dear Friends,

Welcome to Media Matters for America, a new Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Because a healthy democracy depends on public access to accurate and reliable information, Media Matters for America is dedicated to alerting news outlets and consumers to conservative misinformation -- wherever we find it, in every news cycle -- and to spurring progressive activism based on standards and accountability in media.

In the mid-1990s, as a conservative media insider, I saw firsthand (and participated in) the damage done to our democracy when conservative misinformation masquerades as journalism. In my book Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative (2002), I revealed how this misinformation -- deliberately bought and paid for by covert political forces -- enveloped the media, poisoned public discourse, and nearly toppled a president.